At the outset let me specify that I am confining my remarks here to
"books" and the act of authorship because that is the area with which I
am most conversant. I believe this argument extends equally well to
others who engage in the production of what might largely be termed
"art", and which includes song writing, painting, sculpture, and other
creative endeavors, but they are not my primary focus.

One prevalent argument against intellectual property rights rests on
the assertion of the absence of scarcity of "the property". Not only is
this a false claim, it furthermore misidentifies the nature of the
actual "property". In the act of authorship, the author consumes that
which may, in fact, be his or her most scarce resourcetime. In
addition to its undeniable scarcity, the author's time is demonstrably
"rivalrous"not only can no one else use it, but the author himself
may use it only once.

In effect, then, intellectual property rights represent a sort of
cosmic timeclock. The author invests his scarce, non-renewable resource
in the intellectual process that results in the "pattern" of the work
in question. But what you buy, in factwhat the book representsis
a portion of the author's life expectancy invested in the creation
of that pattern.

The book (and the "new" business model it once representedask any
wandering minstrel or village storyteller) offers the author a more
efficient means of communicating than sitting down with individuals or
groups and telling the story over and over again. Freed from the need
to recommunicate those same expressions, the author may turn to the
creation of additional works. Finally, the book offers the consumer a
more efficient opportunity to access the work, allowing him to
determine when and where he will receive it (rather than listening at
the convenience of the storyteller), and at a small fraction of its
actual cost. And it would seem, all things considered, that the cost of
the author's time becomes a bargain, amortized as it is over the
lifetime of the author and available to everyone for the same price,
regardless of what he might be entitled to charge (based on his
marketability) in a one-on-one setting.

Market information (sales) indicates to the author if his allocation of
resources is correct (or at least acceptable). If the author's works
are highly sought after, his time is more highly rewarded through
additional sales (but not through increased costs to any individual
customer). If the market does not value his time sufficiently to
warrant further investment in the creative process, he must try another
approachor find another occupation. Thwarting the marketthrough
the theft of intellectual propertyand thereby denying the author
the information the market generates will unquestionably and
necessarily result in a misallocation of his scarce resources, most
probably resulting in a shift away from the creative process into
something more "tangible" and, therefore, less vulnerable to theft.

Authors who write for a living are professionals in the same sense as
accountants, economists, and lawyers. They apply their knowledge,
skills, experience, and talents to an issue or problem or situation,
offering clarification, solution, observation, or perhaps merely
entertainment. If an author need not be compensated for his time and
skill, on what grounds, then, does a lawyer demand to be paid? Authors
bear much of the same overhead as other professionals, though they
typically have no client to charge on an hourly basis. The book you
purchase, then, pays your portion of the author's fee.

Since it is highly unlikely that the consumer of a work is being forced
to read it, one presumes that the relationship between the author and
the consumer is a voluntary one. The author has provided the consumer
with something that particular individual consumer theoretically
values. In exchange, he asks that the consumer not give away increments
of the author's time that have not been purchased. That is the explicit
agreement represented by the copyright symbol. Your act of purchasing
the book constitutes your acceptance of the agreementjust as your
arrangement with your attorney constitutes your acceptance of his terms
of service.

Whether you abide by that agreement is another matter entirely.

Followers of some anti-IPR proponents will see that what many choose to
give away are their amateur musings, outside their paid specialty, and
not the professional opinions for which they are handsomely rewarded.
Additionally, it is entirely their choice which information to share
and which to hoard. Others are academic faculty, seeking tenure, and
operating under a requirement to publish openly. (In the case of
academia, the primary currency sought is citation and attribution.) If
an author chooses to give away his time, it is his to give. If he
chooses to sell his time, that is also his choice. If you choose to
purchase his time you agree to his conditions (just as you do with the
lawyer, accountant, economist, psychologist, physician, in fact any of
myriad professional practitioners). I make no judgment regarding the
market strategy of giving one's work awayI merely claim that it is
the right and responsibility of the person to whom the work belongs to
make that decision for himself.

When you (the fee-payer) copy and distribute the author's work without
his sanction (and in violation of your explicit agreement with him) you
are, in fact, giving away the author's most valuable and scarce
resource, his time, a resource upon which you have no claim beyond that
purchased via the physical manifestation of the book. As an exercise,
ask your attorney how happy he would be to have you reproduce his
professional opinions and share them with all and sundry.

In the end, those who insist they are within their rights to dispose of
another's time will do what they wish regardless of the justice or
propriety of it. But those who understand that time is finite will
consider that the support they give to those authors whose work
expresses their values, or expands their appreciation, or challenges
their perceptions, is not about the physical object they hold in their
hands but rather about the irreplaceable resources expended to create
that work.

If you are among those to whom the idea of simply taking something
because you want it is a notion you got over as a child, thank you,
both for growing up and for abiding by your own sense of right and
wrong. If you can't or won't agree to the terms of a sale, you have the
free will to choose not to buy the object in question. If you seek the
information contained in those works but are unwilling to pay the cost
you are, at best, a freeloader. If you agree to the terms and then
violate them, you're guilty, at least, of breach (infraction or
violation of a law, obligation, tie, or standard), and likely not to be
trustworthy in other respects. True free riders (those who do not
actively seek to acquire the information at no cost, but who merely
happen upon it) obviously cannot be bound by such agreement; their
subsequent behavior with respect to the acquisition of an author's
works will demonstrate their nature.

This issue (IPR) has caused me to spend hours of my life in unexpected,
but productive ways, and I am compelled to close the circle, as it
were, and return to the event that sent me down this path in the first
place. So let us return, briefly, to the issue of plagiarism.
Plagiarism (an issue distinct from copyright infringement) is defined
in dictionaries as "the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or
purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts,
ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own
original work." [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism; accessed
9/6/10 at 2:10 pm MDT]. Here I present evidence of one member of the
continuously reconstituting collection of individuals occasionally
known as "The Shire", claiming authorial credit for the document in
question. Please take note of the cutline that follows the
declaration at: [this link]

And here is the restitutive claim that will, for me at least,
end this discussion. The articles of this document are sufficiently
mangled as to be of no interest to me as a Signatory to the original
document. However, the preamble is reproduced word for word,
punctuation included, from the original
Covenant of Unanimous Consent.
If you want to put an end to this emnity:

1. Remove the preamble from the "Shire Declaration". (Simply hacking
off the preamble would be sufficient, removing the necessity to
regather signatures.)

2. Replace the existing copies of the document with your new version on
all websites to which you have controlling access and publicly request
replacement or removal from sites you do not control.

3. Issue a public apologyin all of the places you've previously
libeled or slandered (in the ethical sense, no I'm not threatening you
with a lawsuit, just public humiliation) the author and others
associated with this disputethen we can all go about our business.

If you're willing to make it right, I'm willing to accept your apology.

Like this? Why not pay the author!Select amount then click "Donate Now"

Pay to Cathy L.Z. Smith
cathylz@netzero.com

Cathy L.Z. Smith is currently working toward a bachelor's degree in
history, with a minor in anthropology.